House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was taxes.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Conservative MP for Medicine Hat (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 80% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Bill C-28 February 18th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is absolutely wrong. This bill was sponsored by the finance minister himself. He himself stands to profit from this legislation.

The ethics counsellor did not even know about this until he read about it in the newspaper. Then this farce of an investigation was to call up the minister's company, which said oh no, Mr. ethics counsellor, there has not been any wrongdoing. You can trust us. That was his investigation.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What is the use of an ethics counsellor if he approves unethical behaviour?

Bill C-28 February 18th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the owner of Canada Steamship Lines, one of the country's largest shipping companies.

It just so happens the same finance minister sponsored tax legislation that could potentially save millions of dollars in taxes for companies such as his own.

Why is the finance minister allowed to bring in legislation that could potentially profit him personally to the tune of millions of dollars? Why is he allowed to do that?

Points Of Order February 17th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, during question period the veteran's affairs minister quoted from a document that was allegedly from me. I am not aware of this document. Could the minister table that document so I can have a look at exactly what he was quoting from?

The Economy February 17th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear today that his vision for Canada means more big government programs from Ottawa. That is his vision for Canada. He made it abundantly clear in his speech today.

My question is for the finance minister. Is the Liberal vision for Canada a bunch of higher taxes for Canadians? Is it their vision that Canadian families should be paying $6,000 a year in taxes just for the interest on the debt? Is it their vision that we should see disposable incomes falling by $3,000 since the government came to power? Is that their vision for Canada? Is that what the Liberals are all about?

The Economy February 17th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, that answer was slightly ironic, coming from the finance minister who cut health care transfers by 35% or $7 billion.

Today's prebudget speech told Canadians they could expect exactly zip-a-de-doo-dah in terms of tax relief for Canadians in next week's budget. Absolutely nothing. Not a single word about tax relief or about debt reduction.

Why is the government insisting on repeating the same mistakes of the past 30 years, continuing down the same track of high spending and more debt for Canadians?

Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent question. My friend had collateral. Did that matter? No. He got the small business loans backing anyway because the banks wanted him to take it. In effect, they were double guaranteeing a loan and Canadian taxpayers were therefore subsidizing him. That does not make any sense.

Why do my friends in the Liberal Party not address this glaring problem with this piece of legislation? Not one of them has stood to say that it is wrong and needs to be addressed.

I have a rhetorical question for my friends across the way. Why do they not address this? Everybody knows it is wrong. Why do they not do something about it?

Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question but his premise is wrong. My leader pointed out that we wanted to see more competition in banking before we would even consider a merger.

What is important here is how the consumer is served. We are certainly standing up for the people of western Canada when we say that. We believe their considerations should come first and that is why we want more competition and more access to capital than we currently have.

That is where we come down on the issue. The real question is where do the NDP come down on the issue of the Small Business Loans Act.

I have a question for my friend in the NDP. Do they continue to support a system that effectively subsidizes big banks that made $7.5 billion in profits last year? Certainly that cannot be the position of the New Democratic Party.

Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would respond by simply saying that instead of that we should have lower taxes, lower debt and more competition in banking so that people have other access to credit.

Not only does the auditor general think this does not work. Some 40% of the loans that were made were ones where the Small Business Loans Act backing was not necessary. In other words, we are subsidizing the banks.

Does my friend across the way think it is necessary to subsidize banks that make $7.5 billion in profits?

Small Business Loans Act February 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kelowna.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, the Small Business Loans Act. I want to make it clear that Reformers oppose this legislation. We think it is wrong headed. We think it goes in the wrong direction completely. I want to start by outlining some of the concerns Reformers have with this piece of legislation.

What is happening here is the government is proposing to raise the liabilities that taxpayers are on the hook for up to $15 billion, a $1 billion increase. We have to stand four square opposed to that. We do that for a number of reasons.

We point out that the auditor general has been extraordinarily critical of the Small Business Loans Act. Taxpayers are already on the hook for $210 million in loans that have gone bad. Because the point of this program is to underwrite loans, inevitably Canadian taxpayers are going to end up on the hook. In this case it is $210 million. Studies done between 1994 and 1996 indicate that 40% of these loans would have been made anyway. I want you to hold that in your head for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and I will come back to it in a moment.

We also point out that job creation figures under the Small Business Loans Act have been grossly inflated. We should not be surprised by that. We have seen it already in programs like the infrastructure program. In fact I heard the treasury board president talking about that today. He was spreading more of that misinformation. The auditor general actually denounced the government for inflating the job creation figures of the infrastructure program. The government has done it again with the Small Business Loans Act.

The final point is there is very little accountability to Parliament.

I want to go back to the point that I asked Mr. Speaker to consider very carefully, the fact that 40% of these loans would have been made anyway. What that tells me is that we are in a situation where the people of Canada are providing backing for loans the banks would have been making anyway. In other words essentially what we are doing is providing a subsidy to the big banks.

The last time I checked it was the Government of Canada that was in the red and it was the banks that were making $7 billion a year in profits. Why in the world is the guy who is in the red, the Government of Canada, subsidizing the banks that are making $7 billion in profits? I do not see any sense in that. I would argue that it is completely contrary to common sense. If we put that proposition to Canadians today, and I guess that is what we are doing, I can guarantee they are going to say that is absolutely insane.

But does the government turn around and say “Well, we made a mistake. We are not going to do that any more”? No. What it wants to do is increase the liability by $1 billion to $15 billion. What is the sense in that?

I can guarantee that Reformers will not support legislation like this. We believe it is completely wrong to start subsidizing some people with the tax dollars of other people only to have those people who are being subsidized turn around and compete against them. That does not make any sense. It is why we oppose some of the regional development programs, the ones with the inflated job creation numbers, the ones that the auditor general has excoriated in the past. We have to get away from that type of thinking. It does not work.

I want to talk for a moment about what does work. We do not want to be negative here. I do believe that the government has fallen prey to the law of unintended consequences. Perhaps the auditor general has pointed the way for it but of course one can only go where people are willing to follow. Let us hope if the government does not heed the auditor general it will heed some of our advice but I am not counting on that.

Let us figure out how we can help small business. There are a number of things.

The first thing is we need more competition in the banking industry. If there was more competition in the banking industry and it was not just the big six banks being able to skim the cream off the top and take the best and the safest loans to help them get those big profits, then they would have to really explore whether or not they should take a bit of a chance on some of the small businesses out there, the ones where people do not have collateral, the ones where maybe their collateral is in their head. It might be one of the high tech companies.

If there was real competition, if we had banks within Canada facing competition from banks outside of Canada or from other institutions such as insurance companies that got into banking, it would force all of those different institutions to look for ways to provide more credit so that they could continue to make profits. That makes sense. More competition is one way that will provide credit for small business.

Another point we want to make, and this is an important one in light of the fact that we have a budget coming up, is we would like to see the debt paid down. People are going to ask what that has to do with providing help for small businesses. The fact is when the government has a debt of $600 billion and when industry can go wherever it wants to invest, chances are they are not going to come to the country that is most indebted. We saw that in the Asian crisis. When there was a flight to quality did they come to Canada? Hardly and we have seen our dollar fall as a result of that. They went to the United States.

We need to attract those people here. When they come here they bring investment. We have to start paying down the debt to attract those people. By doing that we also start to lower our interest rates. The government all of a sudden is no longer the one that holds all the money and credit is available for other businesses, for instance small businesses. I know that is not as sexy as getting some kind of a small business loan from the bank with the name of the Government of Canada on it. It probably does not get as much political credit, but it works. That is what is important.

Let us start to pay down the debt. Reformers have laid out a plan where we would lower the current debt to GDP ratio from over 70% debt to GDP down to 20% over a period of about 20 years. In the course of that we would save taxpayers about $20 billion a year in interest. It is a good deal all around.

The other thing is, and my friend from Calgary Southeast has mentioned it, we must start to lower taxes. My friend has pointed out and he is absolutely right, that when we talk to small business people they do not say “Boy I wish we could have the Small Business Loans Act liability raised $1 billion”. We do not hear that. But they sure do say “Let us lower payroll taxes. Let us get payroll taxes down so that there is no longer a disincentive for us to hire people”. They point out that payroll taxes are not profit sensitive. If they are in a loss position they are still paying taxes. In fact they could literally be taxed out of business. Let us get those payroll taxes down.

We talk about the small business exemption of $200,000 which should be raised. My friend from Saskatoon pointed this out earlier. If we allowed it to be indexed to inflation it would be up over $300,000 right now. I think he said $315,000. That would help small businesses tremendously.

Let us look at some other alternatives. If we really want to help small business in this country, let us not fool around by raising liabilities by $1 billion and putting taxpayers on the hook for another $1 billion. Let us get away from that central planning thinking which went out with the fall of the Berlin wall. It is time to embrace market liberalism. It is time to embrace the ideas that really do create wealth in this country. That means lower taxes, lower debt, an atmosphere where people are encouraged to invest.

One of the things we advocate is cutting the capital gains tax. We believe that it makes sense to offer people incentives to invest. That would do a tremendous amount to help people who want to start their own small business. All of a sudden there would be all of these people who have a real incentive to invest in a business.

I talked about the folly of Bill C-21, the Small Business Loans Act and some of the particulars in it. More than that we have offered some positive alternatives, some alternatives that will help Canadians, that will give them some opportunity, something they have been missing for a long time.

I encourage my friends across the way to consider closely what we have said and my colleagues on this side to vote against Bill C-21.

The Budget February 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it sounds more like the Bre-X approach to me. The fact is the auditor general chided the government for not following its own policies with respect to accounting.

My question is again for the finance minister who was very evasive the last time. Will he assure Canadians that he will not make that surplus disappear before we get it by hiding future spending in this year's budget?